Standing Committee E

[Frank Cook in the Chair]

On resuming—

Nick Gibb: I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary say that he shares our aspiration to increase opportunities for the study of science. I was therefore surprised by some of what he said in response to the amendments. In particular, he implied that amendment No. 81 would remove the entitlement to study for a double award of science, which it would not. It would not delete anything from the Bill; it would simply add a new subsection (5A) to proposed section 85 of the Education Act 2002, creating an entitlement to study biology, chemistry and physics separately. It is therefore an addition to existing entitlements.
When the hon. Gentleman said that pupils could do either one science plus the additional science or the three GCSEs, he skipped over the fact that those options are available to students only if the governing body says that the school can provide that entitlement. My hon. Friends and I strongly believe that all pupils in secondary schools should be entitled to study three separate sciences. We will wish to press amendment No. 81 to a Division when we reach that point.
Finally, the Under-Secretary denied that creationism is in the national curriculum, but I have a copy of the OCR gateway science suite biology B syllabus. Under the heading “Assessable learning outcomes Higher Tier only: high demand” it states:
“Explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation).”
Creation is now in this country’s science curriculum.

Phil Hope: Let me make it clear that creationism is not being taught under the OCR syllabus or the awarding body as a scientific explanation of evolution or of how we all got here or how the world began. The hon. Gentleman can point to the document as much as he likes, but that is not the case; he misrepresents what is in it.

Nick Gibb: I read from the document. It states:
“Explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time”.
It is not necessarily saying that creationism is true, but it is making it a debating point. That is all that I am saying. It means that creationism will be discussed and analysed in the science curriculum rather than in the religious education curriculum, which is where it belongs, as a result of the OCR biology B gateway science suite. That is not an appropriate place in the curriculum.

James Clappison: Has my hon. Friend considered that there might be a simple misunderstanding on the part of the Under-Secretary, which could be put right if my hon. Friend were to reread the title of the document? There could then be no doubt about what appears in the OCR document.

Nick Gibb: Yes. It is the OCR GCSE biology B gateway science suite. I am not making a big thing of it, but creationism ought to be in the religious component of the curriculum rather than thescience section. I look forward to voting on amendment No. 81.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 81, in clause 61, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
‘(5A) A pupil in the fourth key stage is entitled, if he so elects, to follow a course of study in science that leads to separate qualifications in—
(a) biology,
(b) chemistry, and
(c) physics.'.—[Mr. Gibb.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 258, in clause 61, page 43, line 24, at end insert—
‘(8) In relation to the teaching of each core subject for the fourth key stage, a maintained school shall make provision for—
(a) accelerated or enriched course of study designed to stretch higher ability pupils within the school;
(b) courses of study for pupils of lower ability designed to reduce differences between the attainment of lower and average ability pupils.
(9) The National Curriculum for England may specify programmes of study in relation to the courses of study under subsection (8).'.
The amendment provides for accelerated or enriched courses of study that are designed to stretch higher ability pupils, and courses of study for pupils of lower ability that are designed to reduce differences between attainment levels of lower and average ability pupils. The amendment was inspired by the White Paper, which stated on page 9 that there will be
“targeted one-to-one tuition in English and maths in the schools with the most underperforming pupils, to help those falling behind to catch up with their peers”
and
“more stretching lessons and opportunities for gifted and talented pupils”.
The amendment therefore reflects commitments both parties have made to extend the use of setting. Labour’s 1997 manifesto stated:
“We must modernise comprehensive schools. Children are not all of the same ability, nor do they learn at the same speed. That means ‘setting’ children in classes to maximise progress”.
That sentiment was also expressed in the 1997 White Paper, “Excellence in Schools”, which stated:
“Setting should be the norm in secondary schools.”
Despite that commitment and widespread support among parents for setting, the proportion of lessons set by ability has hardly increased since 1997—from about 37 per cent. of lessons to 40 per cent. of lessons, which means that 60 per cent. of academic lessons in comprehensive schools take place in mixed-ability classes. In English 49 per cent. and in history and geography about 65 per cent. of classes are mixed ability. Even in maths, which has the most setting of all subjects, one in 10 lessons take place in mixed-ability classes.
The resistance to setting is ideological. There is a deep strand of opinion within the education establishment that setting is anti-egalitarian. The leading academic opposed to ability grouping is the American Robert Slavin, who says that
“decisions about whether or not to ability group must be made on bases other than likely effects on achievement. Given the antidemocratic, antiegalitarian nature of ability grouping, the burden of proof should be on those who would group rather than those who favour heterogeneous grouping, and in the absence of evidence that grouping is beneficial, it is hard to justify continuation of the practice.”
Another argument advanced to explain why only60 per cent. of lessons take place in mixed-ability classes is that many secondary schools, particularly those in rural areas, are too small to enable setting in all subjects, but that is false. To have a minimum level of setting—set one and set two—all that is needed is a two-form entry. Although each of the sets will contain a wide range of abilities, the range will be half that of a single mixed-ability group at that school.
Most secondary schools have four or five forms in each year. Last week I visited a comprehensive school in Milton Keynes that has a five-form entry, and from next year it will have setting in every academic subject. I asked the assistant head, who is in charge of timetabling, how it was possible to do that for all subjects. I told him that some schools had told me that they could not set in, for example, the humanities, because the complexities of the timetable made that impossible unless extra teachers were employed. He said that that was nonsense—that what had to be done was to divide the timetable and all the sets into four blocks. He lost me on the mathematics of it all; suffice it to say that all the subjects will be set by ability. Therefore, if an average size comprehensive school does not set all its academic subjects by ability, it is either engaged in poor timetabling techniques or it is maintaining mixed-ability teaching for ideological reasons.
My view is that if we genuinely want to create a more equal society, we shall do so by raising the quality of education for all and one of the key ways to achieve that, particularly in schools with the most demanding challenges, is to eliminate mixed-ability teaching in academic subjects, stretching the most able and giving the least able the time and space to learn. As children develop, particularly those who are late developers or for whom the subject suddenly clicks, they can move up the sets.
The next line of argument is whether the research shows that setting raises educational attainment. I believe that it does, but the problem with so much educational research is that it is bedevilled by non-scientific methodologies and is usually agenda-driven—in other words, it is carried out by people who have already reached a conclusion and design their studies to demonstrate it. Science-based research with control group methodologies makes that much more difficult, but such research is rare in the field of education.

Sarah Teather: Far be it from me to undermine the importance of scientific research, given my background, but surely all sorts of research methods are applicable. Qualitative research might be just as important in obtaining information, but it is not always possible to have proper control groups and it is certainly not possible to do a double-blind experiment.

Nick Gibb: It is difficult, but it can be done. Situations are created inadvertently, such as in the Chicago school district—if one reads the book “Freakonomics”, one sees that all sorts of data analysis is done after the event. The Chicago school district has lottery-based selection procedures in some areas, so a blind test can be carried out. There are control groups in such large school districts.
The Department for Education and Skills is as guilty, if not more so, as others in this respect. A compendium of literature on setting prepared by the National Foundation for Educational Research selectively quoted Jim Kulik, leaving readers with the impression that Professor Kulik opposed setting when in fact he is one of the leading proponents of tracking, or ability grouping as they call it in the United States. His research shows that if children are separated into ability groups and each class is taught the same curriculum, it results in no significant increase in educational attainment. That was the bit quoted in the NFER compendium; but Professor Kulik went on to say that if the curriculum were tailored to each set’s ability range, a huge rise in attainment would be seen at the top level and no fall in attainment at the lower ability level. He also demonstrated that self-esteem in the lower ability sets rises rather than falls because, for the first time, those pupils are given the time and space to learn without suffering the daily humiliation of seeing impatient, brighter pupils elsewhere in the class. Kulik also shows a small decrease in self-esteem at the top levels, as bright students face competition for the first time.
What is important in setting is not merely that pupils are divided into classes of different ability, but that the curriculum is tailored to the ability groups. Our amendment places a clear expectation that effective setting techniques should be used in schools. New subsection (8)(a) proposed in the amendment would ensure that schools would provide the enriched and accelerated classes that research has shown to be most effective, and new subsection (8)(b) would focus on the lowest attainers. It is essential that the ethos of all schools is centred around effort and academic progress and that pupils of all abilities are pushed to learn as much as they can. An effective system of ability grouping must ensure that pupils move out of the lowest ability groups as soon as possible.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not consistent in his pursuit not only of encouraging schools to use setting as a form of teaching, but of imposing it on every school, whatever the circumstances. He might be consistent in that respect, but his argument is rather inconsistent with the views that he expressed earlier that schools should be allowed to determine their own futures—but then, we do not expect a full degree of consistency from the Conservatives.
Ensuring that the teaching of pupils fits their individual abilities is, of course, important, but I do not think that the amendment catches the diversity of pupils’ abilities and the flexibility required to teach them all effectively. The national curriculum prescribes the essential teaching required to meet the needs of all pupils but deliberately leaves the question how subjects should be taught to the professionalism of teachers. The amendment, although I understand that it is well intentioned, would constrain the flexibility that teachers need to deliver courses to meet the whole range of their pupils’ abilities. Legislating to impose categories of pupil ability might also hamper schools when they need to adapt provision in response to pupils’ progress.
Our preferred approach is to personalise education, so that schools respond flexibly to the differing needs of all their pupils. Our national strategies, including the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, are driving support for that personalisation. As part of the recent schools White Paper, we will ensure that every school has access to expert teachers in maths and English catch-up, and an expert teacher for gifted and talented education. We are also considering what further guidance should be made available to help schools to provide stretch and catch-up in the light of the review of the key stage 3 curriculum that is now under way.
In key stage 4, pupils are working to qualification outcomes, which can be selected according to pupils’ abilities: GCSE exams have tiered papers and candidates are entered either for the higher tier, covering grades A* to D, or the foundation tier, covering grades C to G, according to their abilities. A range of qualifications other than GCSEs can be selected for higher and lower ability pupils, including early entry to AS levels for those of higher ability, or entry and foundation-level qualifications for those of lower ability.
I shall say one or two words about setting, given that the hon. Gentleman spoke about it at length. We know that grouping pupils by ability can support effective personalisation and raise standards. Since 1997 we have encouraged schools to use setting by ability and other forms of pupil grouping, and we will continue to do so, as outlined in the Schools White Paper. Ofsted monitoring shows that setting in English and maths in secondary schools has increased: 86 per cent. of maths lessons are now set, which is a very high percentage. However, we trust schools to decide how and when to group and set pupils by ability, as they are best placed to know and to meet the learning needs of their pupils. That is the only practical approach.
On the basis of my arguments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Nick Gibb: The Minister talks about consistency, but education was a key part of the 1997 manifesto on which his party was elected, and it stated:
“That means ‘setting’ children in classes to maximise progress, for the benefit of high-fliers and slow learners alike. The focus must be on levelling up, not levelling down.”
That was translated into the first education White Paper. There has not been a big increase in setting since 1997: it has gone up from 37 to 40 per cent. overall. The Minister is right: 86 per cent. of maths classes are set, but the rate was always high in that subject, and that figure implies that 14 per cent. of lessons in maths, which is a linear subject, are still taught in mixed-ability classes. Maths is a core subject—all children study it—and there is no reason why any maths lesson in a comprehensive school should not be taught in setted classes.
This is an important issue which goes to the root of the underperformance of many comprehensives and the fact that many children are not being stretched as much as they might be. I shall divide the Committee on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 239, in clause 61, page 43, line 28, leave out from ‘in’ to ‘entitlement’ in line 29 and insert
‘one or more subjects within each’.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 503, in clause 61, page 43, line 33, at end insert—
‘(1A) Where a course of study within an entitlement area specified by the Secretary of State under section 85A(1)(b) is to be introduced, all relevant teaching materials must be circulated to schools one full academic year before their introduction.’.
The Minister became uncharacteristically prickly earlier. For the sake of effect, I think, he suggested that I was not as committed as he is to the progress of all children in our schools, particularly those children who are being failed by the system. I do not wish in any way to understate the achievements in our schools, the good work of teachers and the good work taking place across schools in Britain. We have paid tribute to that before in Committee, but it is important to put it on the record again. However, under successive Governments there have been problems in vocational education. That is not to say that there have not been successes: good work has been done with GNVQs and NVQs and many young people have benefited from that work. But there is still a considerable way to go in terms of parity of esteem, employer engagement, ensuring that work that we do on vocational education across schools and further education is synergic, and making sure that the supply of vocational education matches the demands of the world of work.
To that end, as the Committee will know, the Government have decided to introduce a series of diplomas. As I said earlier, we broadly support that development. It is critical that we look again at accreditation and qualifications to deal with parity of esteem. Governments of all colours have tried before but have not really tackled the problem, and it is not certain that we will tackle it this time: to be frank, it is a big mountain to climb. The preoccupation in our culture with what I described earlier as a literary education—I might have called it more simply an academic education—has led to vocational education being deemed to be the preserve of those who cannot make the grade academically. We need to elevate our sights beyond that. I know that the Government feel strongly about that, as do Members on both sides the Committee. However, it is critical that measures are introduced in a practical, common-sense way, so that they can and will succeed. My determination that they should succeed us what lies behind the amendment.
There is a danger that the introduction of the first four or five sets of diplomas—I will explain why I mention four or five—in 2008 is being rushed. The minutes of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority board meeting considering the time line for implementing new diplomas recorded:
“There is a tension between trialling proposed changes properly and the need to have them in place by a certain date.”
The QCA has also warned that the changes will place unprecedented pressure on schools. The changes will take place at the same time as an overhaul of the curriculum for 11 to 14-year-olds. Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, has accused the Government of having
“'no coherent and resourced plan for training teachers to implement the reforms.”
I do not wish to be unnecessarily partisan as that is not my habit, but there are also worries that the Government’s pedigree in this respect is not what it might be. There were widespread complaints about the changes to A-levels six years ago, and the introduction of AS levels and A2s was also rushed. The then Education Secretary, now Lady Morris, said after ordering an inquiry:
“They weren't the best implemented set of curriculum reforms that have ever happened.”
She told MPs:
“the introduction of the AS-level reforms last year did not do credit to anybody who had responsibility for their implementation.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2001; Vol. 371,c. 954.]
We need to learn from that experience. I do not think that there was any ill will—the intentions were positive and good. The difficulties came in getting the context right—getting schools ready and getting in place all the components necessary for change on such a scale. What is important is competence and confidence: making sure that people understand what is expected of them and then giving them the confidence to deliver. Summing up the lessons to be learnt from the A-level regrading disappointment—I put it no stronger than that—of 2002, Sir Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools, said:
“In my view, major changes to the qualifications system should have a lead-in time of at least five years.”
Teachers frequently say to us—and to MPs of all political parties, I imagine—“For heaven’s sake, don’t change anything more. Don’t throw more at us. We are already struggling to cope with what we’ve got.” Yet the competing imperative, as I said at the beginning, is that we want to get the system right. We know that change is necessary to deal with the parity of esteem issue and to give vocational education the kind of boost that it needs to overcome some of the preoccupations and prejudices that I outlined.

TheTimes Educational Supplement reported that the schedule for the introduction of diplomas
“looks eye-wateringly tight. To meet their deadline of a September 2008 launch, full details of the new diplomas in the first five subject areas—a fifth ‘early’ diploma in construction has been added since the white paper’s publication—will need to be with schools by September 2007.”
For that to happen it is understood that exam boards need an outline of the new qualification from the partnerships, which the Ministers mentioned earlier when we were talking about the development of the new diplomas, so that they work out the detail by June 2006. That is a very tight timetable, which leaves little time for the partnerships to consult employers and to come up with a design for the new diplomas within the broad framework set by the QCA.
Is the timetable on course? That is a question that the Minister needs to answer. Are the necessary components in place? Will the exam boards have the outlines they require by next month? Some have argued, although I do not agree, that the diplomas represent a wasted opportunity. Sir Mike Tomlinson, the chief architect of the original plan has argued that diplomas are a “missed chance”; he fears that vocational options will still be regarded as a second best for those who cannot do anything better. I disagree. We must get behind the diplomas because they represent our best chance. I believe that we can achieve a reasonable degree of cross-party co-operation on diplomas, but if we are to get them right, the sort of probing questions that I have put need to be answered convincingly. The worse thing in the world would be to have something that went of at half-cock and that disappointed.
In conclusion, one in five comprehensives currently offer vocational courses only for children with special educational needs—that is not my figure; it comes from the QCA. That is not acceptable or appropriate and it is certainly not what young people or employers want. I hope that the amendment, which suggests that all the necessary information has to be in place before proceeding, will at least give us a chance to explore these serious matters, and I look forward to hearing the Minister respond in that vein.

Mary Creagh: I must apologise to my colleagues for breaching our self-denying ordinance. I am less worried about criticism from my Whip than about that from my internal whip about keeping us all here until a late hour. Nevertheless, I want to speak to the amendment because it raises a couple of issues that resonate deeply with me.
First, the amendment covers the exact point that was made to me by a prison officer at Wakefield prison, which I visited during the Easter recess. It might seem a long way from this Committee to Wakefield prison, one of the most high-security establishments in the United Kingdom, but I ask hon. Members to come with me on a journey. The prison officer raised the matter because he runs the prison’s Braille workshop, where its lifers translate school textbooks and learning materials into Braille for children in secondary schools for the blind. His big complaint—it is the one thing that he wanted to impress upon me, and I should like to raise it with Ministers this evening—was about late provision, or the difficulty of publishing textbooks later to give such workshops, wherever they might be, the chance to do the huge amount of translation into Braille and the voluminous work involved in checking and also translating items such as photographs. When we consider vocational education and practical subjects in which there might be a greater need for design and illustration, we will see that the translation into Braille of photographs and models from school textbooks and diagrams is even more difficult than translating text.
Secondly, I want to mention the involvement of outside learning providers in the 14-to-19 curriculum. I was a trustee of Rathbone, which is primarily a learning provider for 16 to 25-year-olds, but which now works in schools on the 14-to-19 agenda. I know from my experience in that context that we have to bring in the third sector if we want it to be involved inthe 14-to-19 curriculum. It will take time and experimentation to address some of the differences between the ways in which outside learning providers and schools would offer a curriculum in the vocational area if we are to narrow the gap and make the curriculum as good as it can be.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady is making a useful contribution to the debate. I am also concerned about employers, many of whom have some way to go before they really understand the potential on offer. I know that the Minister is anxious that they should be much more heavily involved in course design. Like the learning providers and others, I think that the timetable is tight if employers are to do that.

Mary Creagh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. The Rathbone experience of dealing with disadvantaged young people shows the difficulties that arise. Employers may be reluctant to take on children whom they see as school refusers or people whom they perceive to be disruptive, so the work-based learning element of the course is incredibly difficult to get. It takes a long time to build relationships with employers who are not just going to have young people stacking shelves, but progress them on to more meaningful and life-changing work experience.
That takes me on neatly to my third point, which is about a report published by Ofsted on the design and food technology side of the secondary schools curriculum. It carried out a two-year study. It is important to remember the history of food technology. I deliberately did not table any amendments on the matter because I thought that clause 61 would spiral out of control, but I wanted to refer to food in this context.
Food technology began to be introduced in elementary schools in the 19th century to prepare working class girls for a lifetime of domestic servitude in big houses or to keep house and cook for their families. Over the 20th century, it developed into home economics, and with the national curriculum in 1992 food technology emerged as part of the design and technology curriculum. It is important that the review of this area of the curriculum looks into access to funding for ingredients and so on. The general Ofsted report said that parental contributions towards the cost of ingredients and schools’ desire to keep the cost of ingredients down mean that children are limited to cooking cakes, buns and pizzas rather than healthier alternatives.
There is an issue about reforming of the key stage 3 and 4 curriculums as to what we teach young people about food design and technologies. Children will not get far in the world of work if all they can cook is cakes, buns and pizzas. We need to equip them more, not for McJobs, but for jobs in which they can perhaps emulate Jamie Oliver and become celebrity chefs.

Phil Hope: We have had a short but important debate about the diplomas. The introduction of the specialised diplomas is one of the most exciting changes to the curriculum and to the qualifications system of this country. I wholeheartedly endorse every word that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said in that regard. Diplomas will provide young people with new opportunities for practical learning and introduce the high quality, high status—an important point on which he and I agree—vocational learning routes that this country has historically lacked.
We are as insistent as the hon. Gentleman is that the diplomas should be introduced with as much support for providers as possible. The 14-to-19 implementation plan that we published last December set out in considerable detail the timetable for support. The plan includes details of a pilot process for rolling out those specialised diplomas. Those interested in delivering a specialised diploma from 2008 will have to pass through a gateway process to assess their readiness to do so. They will have to demonstrate among other things that they have the capacity to deliver high-quality applied and practical teaching and learning and that they have the capacity and commitment to provide the necessary work force and work force development to deliver the diplomas.
We will certainly ensure that teaching materials, the subject of the amendment, will be available to providers involved in the pilots. For the first five diplomas to be available for teaching from September 2008, teaching materials will be available by September 2007. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for drawing the Committee’s attention to a particular aspect of preparing those materials. She referred to learners who are blind or unable to use ordinary material, and the need to translate them through Braille is important, as is the experience that she brings to the Committee. I shall certainly take away that contribution and ensure that we do not miss out on that opportunity and that that need is not overlooked.
Those teaching materials will be reviewed throughout the pilot phase, ready to support the delivery of the full entitlement from 2013. The last four diplomas will be introduced in 2010, which will give a three-year evaluation period before full entitlement is available. Clearly, subsequent phases of the diplomas over the next few years will also ensure that teaching materials are available to providers at least 12 months in advance of first teaching. I think that that provides the assurances that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings wanted.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention the work force, but I think that preparing the work force is also crucial to the success of the diplomas. That is happening through enhanced training and development for existing staff, leaders and managers, which is focused on preparing them for the introduction of the diplomas, and we are bringing more staff into the system to teach vocational subjects, including the specialised diplomas.
I emphasise that we are working in partnership. Employers, through the sector skills councils’ diploma development partnerships, which we mentioned earlier in relation to other amendments, are heavily involved. The qualification is employer-led and employer-designed, so it is vital that when young people achieve the qualification it will have a high currency among employers and further and higher education institutions. To get through the gateway of quality that I described, providers must have collaborative partnerships with a range of other providers, including employers and voluntary organisations. Rathbone, which was mentioned, is a high-quality organisation; I have been to many of its events and met its young participants, who do a fantastic job, sometimes with very challenging individuals.
It would be inappropriate to legislate for the support that I have been describing, but I hope that I have provided the assurances that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings requested. The first five diplomas are on track and on time, and the development partnerships are working closely together to ensure that those concerned can expect them to be of high quality—an aspiration that the hon. Gentleman and I share.

John Hayes: The Minister has, I think, shown his absolute commitment to getting the matter right. I know that our views on it are similar and that he appreciates what a mountain there is to climb. I shall not repeat what he or I have already said, but it is worth mentioning the remarks of the hon. Member for Wakefield, who set out some of the worries that I, much less competently, tried to articulate.
It may not be that legislation is the right way to deal with the issue. It is not because I do not believe that the Minister’s intentions are right that I am inclined to press the matter to a vote. I am inclined to do so because I think it important that the Bill should be seen to emphasise the proper preparation, diligence and commitment that we all have to making the arrangement work. That is why I shall seek to vote on our amendment and to divide the Committee, but I do so in the spirit of my remarks about the Minister’s comments on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 372, in clause 61, page 43, line 47, at end insert
‘, and
(e) classical Latin and Greek'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 241, in clause 61, page 44, line 11, after ‘him' insert ‘to a suitable standard'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 242, in clause 61, page 44, line 15, after ‘him' insert ‘to a suitable standard'.
No. 243, in clause 61, page 44, line 32, at end insert—
‘(7) In this section “suitable standard” means the course of study and the teaching of that course shall be of a standard which should or ought to enable a student of average ability to achieve grades A*, A, B or C at GCSE.'.
No. 259, in clause 61, page 44, line 32, at end insert—
‘(1A) The set of qualifications specified in subsection (1B) are hereby approved under section 98 of the Learning and SkillsAct 2000 for the purposes of section 96 of that Act.
(1B) The set of qualifications referred to in subsection (1A) are the International General Certificate of Secondary Education in any subject awarded by—
(a) University of Cambridge International Examinations,
(b) Edexcel International Examinations, or
(c) any other awarding body that the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.'.

Nick Gibb: Amendments Nos. 241 and 242 would add the words “to a suitable standard” to the curriculum entitlement parts of the clause. Amendment No. 243 proposes a definition of “suitable standard”. The amendments introduce a requirement that in order for the entitlement to be satisfied under the clause, it is not sufficient for the school merely to offer the course specified. It must also ensure that the courses are taught to a suitable standard. The proposals are probing ones. Such a safeguard would ensure that schools take their duty to deliver the entitlements seriously. It would also ensure that where schools collaborate with other educational institutions for the provision of the entitlement, they have regard to the quality of education offered at that school.
Amendment No. 259 would enable the IGCSE to be taught in state schools. Currently, it is the most popular international qualification for 14 to 16-year-olds and is taken by more than 100,000 pupils in more than 100 countries. It can be offered only by independent schools, because they are not part of the national qualification framework. Increasingly, such schools are moving towards the IGCSE as concerns rise about the quality of the normal GCSE. In particular, there are concerns that GCSEs in the core subjects of science and maths do not offer a sufficiently rigorous preparation for study following the GCSE level.
In September 2005, the high master of St. Paul’s school in London, Dr Martin Stephen, announced his intention to drop the GCSE science course. He argued that there was general confusion over the purpose of GCSE and was quoted on BBC News as asking:
“Is it a leaving certificate representing a guarantee of minimum competence? Is it a qualifier for further and higher education? By trying to do both, it has managed not to do either terribly well”.
The move away from the standard GCSE has, ironically, been provoked and expedited by the introduction of the new 20th century science courses that were supposed to remedy that dilemma.
The Science and Technology Committee criticised the existing science curriculum in its 2002 report “Science Education From 14 to 19”. It said:
“'The science curriculum at 14 to 16 aims to engage all students with science as a preparation for life. At the same time it aims to inspire and prepare some pupils to continue with science post 16. In practice it does neither of these well.”
The argument against the new GCSE course is made on precisely on those grounds. Dr. Stephen argues forcefully that the new programmes of study in science, to which the Minister referred, have been dumbed down and lack the rigorous mathematical content that is necessary to proceed to A-level. In doing that, we risk endangering the quality of A-levels. Dr. Stephen has also said:
“you cannot sustain an A-level on these new GCSEs.”
By focusing on ideas about science rather than the traditional in-depth study of it, we have made the curriculum less relevant to those who wish to studythe subject post-16.
Such things are happening not just in science. Manchester grammar school said that it was dropping GCSE maths. The high master said:
“Some GCSEs do not appear to be appropriate for the most able.”
The amendment will offer maintained schools access to the same high-quality qualifications demanded by the independent sector. It will offer academically inclined young people in those schools good preparation for further study, and we hope that the Minister will accept our amendments.

Phil Hope: In relation to amendments Nos. 241 to 243, we already have robust systems for checking the quality of courses and teaching. By prescribing in legislation the grades that pupils ought to achieve, the amendments would place an excessive and unnecessary burden on schools.
A student’s success is a product of the combined efforts of students and their teachers, and we would be unwise to introduce a provision that could lead pupils and parents to think that schools have a legal responsibility for the achievement of particular grades. The notion that schools are legally accountable in that way may prompt some students to do less work and then seek legal remedies against the school that they blame when they subsequently underachieve in their exams.
Having said that, we must ensure that we get the quality of qualifications in schools and the standard of teaching that we expect. The best way to do that is through the work of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Ofsted and others. It is the role of the QCA and its regulatory partners in Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that qualifications are fair, standards are secure and public confidence in the examinations system is sustained. The QCA regulates awarding bodies, qualifications, examinations and national curriculum assessments. I am confident that the QCA as regulator will ensure that high standards are established and maintained for the diploma as they continue to be for GCSE and A-level qualifications.
The new inspection regime for schools was introduced in September 2005. Schools are now inspected every three years rather than every six, and they are given very little notice of inspections. Additionally, we have raised the bar in terms ofwhat is satisfactory. What was acceptable as a standard 10 years ago is not acceptable now. Every school should strive to be a good school.
Amendment No. 259 seeks to approve international GCSEs. We debated the issue under another amendment, so I shall not repeat my earlier points. We understand the concerns that have been raised, and I informed the Committee of a process under way that may go some way towards resolving some of the dilemmas that the hon. Gentleman raised. However, I repeat that those awarding bodies have not put forward their qualifications through the QCA system. The QCA system is vital to ensure that qualifications and learners are protected.

Nick Gibb: But surely the reason why they have not presented those courses is because they do not contain coursework, so they would automatically be turned down. The Government must reassess the coursework content requirement before international GCSEs can be considered acceptable to the maintained sector.

Phil Hope: That will be a matter for those involved in the discussions to consider. However, we have a system in place that has proven its worth in ensuring that qualifications are to a standard and quality that we expect, learners are protected, and providers know what and how they have to deliver to meet those standards. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but those bodies must debate the issues to resolve them and find a way forward.
On the international GCSEs and the comparison in standards, I regret the words that the hon. Gentleman used—again—to suggest that the new science GCSEs were not fit for purpose. Having had that debate once, I think he was trying to provoke me again into claiming that he does not take the interests of young people to heart. The young people taking those science courses are taking qualifications of a high standard, and to a breadth and depth that will ensure that they can study A-levels in the three separate sciences.
The chief executive of the Association for Science Education said:
“These new courses will challenge students to think and engage in the processes of science rather than simply: ‘learn by rote’.”
That is rigour. That is what forms good scientists in our country. That is the sort of investment we shall see in the future development of our economy, as young people leaving the education system are better equipped to provide a positive contribution to the work force.
I will not go any further on the amendments relating to the IGCSE; I have made my point. In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I did not refer before to the quote that the Under-Secretary cited, but it reveals where the gentleman who made that statement is coming from in, and his views and ideological positions are very clear.
No one in my party is criticising young people in schools. We are trying to create a better curriculum for all children in schools. That is what the debate has been about. It has been a healthy and important debate, and I hope that we shall have many more. The amendments were probing ones that raised some important issues. I heard what the Minister said, but we shall pursue the matter on another occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 244, in clause 61, page 44, line 35, at end insert ‘and'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 254, in clause 61, page 44, leave out lines 37 to 43.

Nick Gibb: Subsection (2)(c) says:
“An order under this section may make such amendments of this Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provision made by virtue of subsection (1).”
The power allows the Secretary of State by order to amend any part of the Education Act 2002 that appears to be necessary or expedient to him in connection with an order amending the requirements for key stage 4. That seems a huge extension of the Secretary of State’s power and I believe that the Under-Secretary needs to justify it. The purpose of these probing amendments is to seek a justification for such large powers.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman accurately describes the effect of the clause, and his amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making amendments to the 2002 Act. I shall explain why the power is important.
We are in the process of altering the key stage 4 curriculum requirements by amending section 85 and inserting proposed new section 85A into the 2002 Act. At present, we do not have plans to use the order-making power in section 86. However, it is very possible that at some point in the future it will prove necessary to use the power to alter the curriculum requirements for the fourth key stage, which now include the entitlement to a specialised diploma. In those circumstances, the power in proposed new section 86(2) is likely to prove useful in enabling necessary consequential amendments to the 2002 Act. In that respect, it is a power limited only to amending that Act. Furthermore, any order that makes use of the power must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. We believe that this is a prudent and sensible power for the Secretary of State to have.

Nick Gibb: I have listened carefully to the Under-Secretary. He has said why the Government want to have this power. It is rather extensive, but given that his comments are on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 245, in clause 61, page 45, line 3, leave out from ‘school' to end of line 6.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenientto discuss the following amendments: No. 246, in clause 61, page 45, leave out lines 7 to 11.
No. 251, in clause 62, page 47, line 1, leave out from ‘area' to end of line 3.
No. 252, in clause 62, page 47, leave out lines 4 to 8.

Nick Gibb: Subsection (3) amends section 88 of the 2002 Act to require the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher to secure courses of study within each of the entitlement areas, unless the local education authority determine that the making of a course of study within a particular entitlement area would involve disproportionate expenditure. Clause 62 makes a similar amendment to the Learning and Skills Act 2000. AmendmentsNos. 245 and 251 would remove that qualifier from both places in which it appears.
The 14-to-19 White Paper said:
“We will ensure schools and colleges make all 14 specialised Diplomas available to all young people in every locality”.
Nowhere does the White Paper add, “except when the local authority can’t afford it”. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could spend a few moments explaining why the qualifier was needed and how many local authorities he expects to be unable to secure the full range of entitlements.
Amendments Nos. 246 and 252 are probing amendments, to seek clarification, and would delete proposed new section 88(3) of the Education Act 2002 and proposed new section 3D(3) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 respectively. We would like to know why those provisions are necessary. Proposed new section 88(3) of the 2002 Act states:
“Nothing in subsection (2) entitles a pupil who elects as mentioned in section 85A(1)(b) to follow a course of study within a particular specified entitlement area or to follow more than one course of study within different specified entitlement areas (provision as to the entitlement of individual pupils being made by section 85A(4)(b)).”
Proposed new section 85A(4)(b) of that Act says that entitlement is not satisfied unless the school makes available the course of study within the entitlement area, so the provision does not make sense. I have read it several times, but I still do not understand it, so perhaps the Under-Secretary could enlighten us as to what it means.

Phil Hope: We share the hon. Gentleman’s vision of ensuring that young people in every part of the country are offered the full range of diplomas—and, moreover, that they are allowed to specify which diploma subject they wish to study, how many diplomas they wish to study and the local learning and skills area in which they will study them. At the heart of our 14-to-19 reform is the aim of enabling young people to choose a qualification pathway that suits them.
We do not think it necessary to amend the Bill in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests to make that happen, however. The duty that we are placing on the learning and skills council and the local authority will ensure that they deliver the full entitlement to the 14 specialised diplomas in each area. That will apply unless the learning and skills council or the local authority determines that the provision of a particular diploma would involve disproportionate expenditure. I shall return to that issue when we discuss later amendments.
Let me be clear: we have never guaranteed that pupils at key stage 4 would be able to pursue their first choice of subject within an entitlement area. The diploma entitlement simply reflects current practice in that regard. We are committed to giving young people a choice and we shall therefore offer them their first choice, unless that would not be in the interests of a child or where capacity does not allow.
The amount of time that the specialised diplomas take up means that young people will be able to study only one at any one time, rather than as many as they want to. Young people who choose to study for a diploma at key stage 4 will also be required to take the core national curriculum subjects—English, maths, science and the foundation subjects of ICT, physical education and citizenship. At level 3, the diploma will take the same curriculum time as three A-levels. The diploma includes an element of generic learning as well, which can constitute up to 26 per cent. Because of that generic component, students would end up repeating up to one quarter of their studies, should they be allowed to take more than one diploma. That would not be beneficial to their development, so we intend to introduce sufficient flexibility into the diploma system to make it unnecessary for students to take more than one.
We need to be aware of the practicalities for the institutions delivering those diplomas. Allowing students to take more than one diploma would make the timetabling of diplomas around the core national curriculum difficult. We also expect students to study outside their home school, in colleges or the working environment. Students taking more than one diploma would therefore need to spend a large amount of time outside school.
The intention of the clause is to give flexibility in specifying the geographical area in which students wish to study. The LSC can commission courses from other local LSCs, which will give young people the best possible choice. We expect young people aged 16 to 19 to be more independent and mobile, and therefore more able to travel to courses. We would certainly not want them to be unable to access their full entitlement from their normal place of residence. I assure hon. Members that the Bill will provide full access by making provision of the diploma entitlements available across an LSC area. We shall issue guidance to LSCs to emphasise further the accessibility of the entitlement.
The provisions place a specific duty on schools, local authorities and the LSC to ensure that all diplomasare made available to young people. However, the provisions are also about offering the diplomas inthe most efficient way possible. Local authorities and the LSC will need to plan jointly across an area to ensure that the entitlement is met. They will need to engage with schools, colleges and other providers so that, through collaboration, all the diplomas are offered.

Sarah Teather: Will the Under-Secretary define disproportionate expenditure? Who would decide whether expenditure was disproportionate?

Phil Hope: We expect local providers and local collaborations to come to sensible judgments about what makes for value for money and disproportionate expenditure. It would be unwise of me to give specific examples now that might set precedents or a benchmark that would reduce opportunities for young people. It will be for local partnerships to work together to ensure that the choices that should be available to young people are available, but they will also have to recognise that value for money must be taken into account when they are collaborating to ensure that the diplomas on offer meet the needs, priorities and aspirations of individual young people.
Local authorities are being asked to draw up prospectuses for their area, which will set out the courses and programmes that each school, college or other provider will offer young people. That will take account of cross-border movement so that programmes in neighbouring areas are included. Working in that way will ensure best value for money. As part of the system, good information, advice and guidance for young people will be crucial, so we are introducing new quality standards to ensure that young people receive comprehensive impartial information and advice on all the opportunities available to them.
It will be for local authorities and the LSC to determine whether it would be an inefficient or uneconomic use of taxpayers’ money to provide, say, facilities and teaching staff for only one pupil. That must be right, and it is what the disproportionate expenditure provision achieves. It is also right and proper that local authorities and the LSC are accountable for discharging the entitlement duty properly and effectively. We are taking several steps to ensure that the decisions are taken sensibly and prudently and achieve the outcomes that we want. I hope that, with those clarifications, I have explained what we might mean by disproportionate expenditure without limiting the options locally for being creative and innovative in meeting needs, and that I have addressed the concerns expressed through the amendments.

Nick Gibb: I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he will ensure that there is full access across a local skills council area and that that will be in the guidance to LSCs in due course. He makes the valid point that older young people are more able to travel than younger pupils who are still at school. I am reassured by that and, in view of the debate and clarification that we have had on the expenditure issue in general, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 229, in clause 61, page 45, line 12, leave out ‘in'.
This is one of the most controversial amendments to the Bill. I believe there is a typo in the Bill in that it has the word “in” twice, unless I have overlooked some deeper meaning in the legislation.

Phil Hope: Some people lead a very, very sad life. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to have pointed out that typographical error. We agree that the inclusion of the word is unnecessary and that the amendment should stand. I think this is the fourth one that we have accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 247, in clause 61, page 45, line 16, at end insert
‘other than in the entitlement areas of geography, history and modern foreign languages.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 248, inclause 61, page 45, line 26, after ‘areas', insert
‘, other than the entitlement areas of geography, history and modern foreign languages,'.
No. 505, in clause 61, page 45, line 27, leave out ‘local education authority' and insert ‘school'.
No. 249, in clause 61, page 45, line 27, after ‘authority', insert
‘or the governing body of a maintained school'.
No. 506, in clause 61, page 45, line 32, leave out ‘local education authority' and insert ‘school'.
No. 250, in clause 61, page 45, line 32, after ‘authority', insert
‘or the governing body of a maintained school'.

Nick Gibb: I am not entirely sure whether my amendment should be proceeded with, but I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can confirm that schools will be expected to offer the full range of academic subjects and will not be able to enter into collaborative arrangements to offer subjects such as history, geography and modern languages. That is the purpose of the amendment, although it is probably technically flawed. It is important when delivering the new curriculum offer that schools do not forget their fundamental role as centres of learning by failing to offer important academic subjects.
Amendments Nos. 249 and 250 refer to collaboration arrangements with further education colleges. At present, local education authorities can make arrangements with FE colleges to provide a course of study within one of the entitlement areas. That is clearly a good idea because FE colleges have the specialist facilities that many of those entitlement areas entail. The amendments would allow the governing bodies of schools to make those arrangements as well, so that they do not have to rely just on local authorities. I do not see why local authorities should have the exclusive right to make such arrangements. There may be circumstances in which it would be easier for a school to make such arrangements, perhaps with an FE college in its immediate locality, instead of having to go through the local authority in all circumstances.
If the Under-Secretary could clarify those two issues, that would deal with these probing amendments.

Phil Hope: The amendment is indeed flawed, as the hon. Gentleman said, but I shall address the point that I think he was referring to: whether young people who choose to study geography, history and modern foreign languages can do so with their home institution.
It is implicit that institutions working together can offer more choice and flexibility to their students. Just as now, schools and colleges will have the freedom to decide which courses they will provide themselves and which, if any, they will offer to students on the rolls of other institutions. That happens now and there are good examples throughout the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that freedom applies not just to the delivery of new diplomas, but to all courses of study at key stage 4, including the four entitlement areas of the arts, humanities, design and technology, and modern foreign languages.
We have issued guidance which recognises that some schools may wish to offer, for example, more than one course of study in the arts to pupils on their school roll. By collaborating with other providers, they can offer greater choice to young people because they can deliver those choices to viable class sizes. Through collaboration young people have more opportunities to study the very subjects that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are concerned about. It also allows specialist schools with, for example, expertise in language teaching to share their knowledge and skills with young people from other institutions. It is vital to allow schools to continue their collaborative arrangements in the delivery of the curriculum to key stage 4 pupils.
Governing bodies already have the power to make arrangements with further education institutions. The amendment is unnecessary because those powers already exist. I am not sure whether that covers the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Clause 149 provides that regulations may enable governing bodies of maintained schools to make collaboration arrangements with FE institutions, which is the other way round. That, I think, covers both sides of the collaborative partnership.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that direction of travel and the way in which schools and colleges are already operating offers much for young people. We want to continue to enable them to do so. On that basis I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 47—Abolition of National Curriculum for England—
‘(1) The National Curriculum for England is hereby abolished.
(2) All maintained schools shall have complete freedom over their curriculum.
(3) EA 2002 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 80 omit subsections (1)(b) and (3)(b).
(5) Omit sections 81 to 96.'.

Sarah Teather: With your indulgence, Mr. Cook, I want to make a few comments about clauses 61 and 62. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that he hoped that the diplomas would be welcomed across all parties, and indeed they are. However, people at a party who are offered canapÃ(c)s are often very grateful to eat them, but that is not to say that they would not be happier if they were offered a full meal.
I echo Mike Tomlinson’s comments. It is a great disappointment to me and my party that the Government did not take this opportunity to implement the Tomlinson reforms in full. Rather than to cherry-pick the themes, it would have been better to have delivered them as a package. Mike Tomlinson said that the reforms
“may only emphasise the difference between the vocational and the academic rather than bringing them together”.
He continued:
“Not having them under a common framework, you do risk the fact that one is seen as better than the other...And the sad fact is that we need many more young people to go into the vocational route and to regard them as high quality and leading to high-quality jobs—and the risk is that we will fail to do that...My greatest fear is that vocational will continue to be seen as second best and available and taken by those who ‘can't do anything better’, as the phrase goes”.
Bill Midgley, the president of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
“These proposals are a mixed bag for businesses...While clearly listening to employers on some key areas, the government has missed an opportunity by failing to propose a single diploma”.
John Dunford, secretary-general of the then Secondary Heads Association, now known as the Association of School and College Leaders, said:
“It's like a party without the host. She”—
the Secretary of State—
“has left out the most important bit...We are all very, very depressed about it...The Tomlinson diploma, carefully crafted with the support of employers, universities, colleges and schools, has been strangled at birth”.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady will have heard in the debate that we had a few moments ago profound concerns expressed by the official Opposition and by Members from the governing party about the difficulties that exist in introducing a reform as radical as the one proposed by the Government. To introduce the Tomlinson reforms, even if one thought that they were right, would be an extremely big task. What kind of time frame does she envisage and what hurdles does she imagine that we would have to overcome?

Sarah Teather: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. There needs to be a lead-in time to implement that kind of reform, but that does not mean to say that we should stop before we have begun. It would have been far better for the Government to state clearly their direction of travel and, if they are willing to implement the Tomlinson reforms, to state that as their final destination.
That is not what has happened. Instead, we have had a rather lukewarm response. The official Opposition have stated clearly that they do not want the Tomlinson reforms implemented. I am less clear about the direction in which the Government wish to go. They say that they have taken the essence of Tomlinson’s reforms without going the whole hog and implementing the package. Each year, 16,000 young people leave school with no qualifications at all. We also have one of the worst staying-on rates post-16 in the developed world. What is more, truancy rates are very high because students are basically voting with their feet on the curriculum.
The key to ensuring satisfaction is to ensure that we have a wide range of choice so that students can choose a curriculum that suits their needs and interests. They must also be offered courses that are in high esteem and are not considered inferior to other courses. For that reason, it is a shame that the Government did not adopt the Tomlinson reforms and offer a single diploma rather than continuing to offer a two-tier system. Since the late John Smith’s commission on social justice, people have been advising the Government that that is the way to break down the class divide and two-tier structure in education. As welcome as the diplomas are, on their own they will not do anything to really break down that two-tier system, which is what the Liberal Democrats want.
Conservative Members have debated at length this afternoon the need to stretch the brightest. If we had the full implementation of the Tomlinson proposals we would have far more flexibility to do that in order to allow pupils to pursue those different courses. Although the options in the Bill offer some flexibility, they will constrain students, as we debated earlier, so that it will not be possible to mix within the same group of entitlements. That seems a nonsense. We really want to do what Tomlinson was arguing for: place the student at the centre and ensure that they can pursue a set of courses suitable to their needs, and exercise choice and responsibility with respect to their futures, beginning at 14.
We have heard a lot about choice, but, for me, choice is not just about choosing schools at 11. There should be choice right the way through the education system and for students as well as for parents and schools. That is what choice means to me, and I am sorry that the Government have failed to implement it.

Angela Smith: I agree with quite a few of the hon. Lady’s comments. I, too, was disappointed that Tomlinson was not included in the Bill in full, and I believe that the single diploma is a missed opportunity. However, the way in which Tomlinson is implemented in the Bill offers us the best chance we have had in a long time to work towards achieving parity of esteem between vocational and academic curricula. I look forward to the Under-Secretary’s comments on why we did not get Tomlinson in full, and on the long-term prospects for achieving something closer to its full implementation.
There is far too much in the Bill about the 14-to-19 curriculum. I echo entirely the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the need to ensure that the implementation of the curriculum is well thought out. That is the main point of the debate this afternoon: what is important is no longer what is in the Bill, but how we implement it, because the futures of our young people are at stake.
The hon. Member for Brent, East pointed out that the staying-on rate is too low in this country; it is 29th out of the 31 OECD countries. The issue is far too important for us to play politics with it by suggesting that the 14-to-19 elements of the Bill should be abandoned, or by voting against the Bill in its entirety simply because it does not implement the Tomlinson reforms in full. On that basis, I ask all hon. Members to vote for the Bill in full on Third Reading, and I ask the Liberal Democrats to abandon their opposition to the Bill on the grounds that it fails to implement Tomlinson in full.

Phil Hope: It is a shame that we are still looking backwards; we have moved beyond the debates on the White Paper. I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East, some of which were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, but Mike Tomlinson himself has said that the debate should move on. Although I understand the desire to go back to such issues, a huge amount has happened since then about which he is extremely pleased. As our debates this evening have demonstrated, it is going to transform the lives of young people in this country.
We have built on the Tomlinson working group’s analysis of the weaknesses and strengths of the existing system, and are implementing some 90 per cent. of its recommendations. Indeed, implementing specialised diplomas in full was a central plank of Tomlinson’s recommendations, but we have done more than that. We recognised and responded to his recommendation on the need for a strong core to all young people’s learning. Through the diplomas, we have introduced a radical transformation of the vocational pathways available to young people, which, importantly, allow them greater choice and flexibility so that as they change, develop, grow and achieve their potential, they can find vocational or academic pathways and routes by which to progress.
At key stage 3, we have gone much further forward than Tomlinson and the working group suggested in terms of reviewing that part of the curriculum to ensure that young people receive preparation for their choices at the age of 14. As we know from our earlier debates, new measures are being introduced to help those who are most disengaged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough was right to say that the issue now is about implementation and delivering on our commitment. There is a huge challenge in front of us all: to do that and do it well, so that the qualifications on offer engage, motivate, excite and inspire young people into learning. It is important that employers recognise that those qualifications have high status and currency in the marketplace, that further and higher education institutions value them, and that they are seen as providing young people with ways to enter higher education that did not exist before. They would not exist now had we not introduced the diplomas.
This is not just about transforming what goes on in the classroom and the experience of young people. It will alter the relationships between schools, colleges, employers and other providers in a way that no change in the secondary school system has done since 1944. It will dramatically transform the way in which institutions, individual teachers and head teachers across the education system work together, both among themselves and with external partners. I am very excited by the possibilities that the diplomas will open up as they begin to be implemented. That is why we have to get it absolutely right.
I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Brent, East to make a political point about Tomlinson. However, I think that we have moved on. What we have in front of us is transformational, dramatic, exciting—something that all of us can get behind. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough is right: on Report we should all put our hands up and say yes to transforming the lives of some of the most disadvantaged young people in our communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Education and training to satisfy entitlements

Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 536, in clause 62, page 46, line 12, at end insert—
‘(3) Nothing in this section removes entitlement under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 537, in clause 62, page 46, line 25, at end insert—
‘(4) Nothing in subsection (3) removes entitlement under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.'.
No. 538, in clause 62, page 46, line 35, at end insert—
‘(4) Nothing in subsection (3) removes entitlement under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.'.
No. 539, in clause 62, page 47, line 13, at end insert—
‘(5A) Where the making available of a course of study within a local learning and skills area would involve disproportionate expenditure the Council must consider whether the said course of study should be made available for persons aged 16-19 in another learning and skills area.'.

Sarah Teather: We do not wish to press amendments Nos. 536 to 538, but I should like to speak briefly to amendment No. 539. The Under-Secretary touched in the previous debate on some of the issues that it raises. We are trying to get clarity about how collaborative arrangements can be made for young people to attend a course in another area if the course that they want to attend is considered to be disproportionately expensive by their local council or LSC. On Second Reading, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills said:
“This Bill will ensure that every young person, wherever they live, can take any of the 14 lines of the specialised diploma that we are developing as part of our radical reforms”.—[Official Report, 15 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1472.]
However, that does not reflect the wording of clause 62, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton stated earlier.
We recognise the potential difficulties of providing all the options in one area. However, we are seeking to ensure that that collaboration can occur across areas—and that it will be encouraged, particularly if a young person lives on a boundary, and there is a relatively close specialist college or further education establishment that provides the course that he requires—and to encourage young people to take up their opportunities and express their choices regardless of whether their council or LSC wishes to provide a course in its area.

Phil Hope: I think that I can give the hon. Lady the kind of assurances that she requires. Where there is already cross-border movement of young people, it is sensible to consider offering diploma courses in neighbouring LSC areas. The development of the prospectuses will address that issue. The draft prospectus guidance says that
“it is for local partnerships to decide the geographical coverage of their area Prospectus. Some learners will inevitably travel across district and county boundaries to access suitable courses. It will be valuable and cost-effective for neighbouring partnerships to work together to develop coherent prospectuses”.
I do not think that we need to make the requirement statutory, because it duplicates action that we are already taking. Of course we would not want, as a consequence, young people to be expected to travel to neighbouring areas many miles away, which could be an unintended consequence of the hon. Lady’s suggestion, if the provision is wrongly worded. I hope, if that is the specific issue about which she was concerned, that I have managed to assuage her fears, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Sarah Teather: With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Travel to schools etc

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 540, in clause 63, page 47, line 24, after ‘England', insert
‘, jointly with the relevant local transport authority or authorities,'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 542, inclause 63, page 48, line 27, after ‘authority', insert ‘or local transport authority'.
No. 541, in clause 63, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
‘(7A) Any guidance issued under subsection (7) above must be prepared in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Transport and must be compatible with guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Transport for the delivery of local transport plans.
(7B) The Secretary of State may not impose any burdens on local education authorities as a result of the provisions of this section which duplicate duties already resulting from provisions of the Transport Act 2000.'.

Annette Brooke: The amendment is basically intended to ensure that school travel is managed in partnership with the local education authority and the local transport authority. The reason for suggesting that the extra words may be needed is that in some circumstances the local education authority may not be coterminous with the local transport authority, or not identically so. Equally, local transport plans may be formulated by more than one local authority, so there could be a case for making things clear.
There seems to be a two-way relationship between the local transport plans and the local education authority role, in that some of what is in the local transport plan will dictate what the LEA can do, and as a result of the Bill what happens at the LEA will have a further impact on the local transport plan. I hope that I am making myself clear. I am convinced that, even when there is not a separate local transport authority, the two-way relationship will exist. We should consider the matter carefully, because the relationships need to work really well, and perhaps stronger relationships need to be built if there are to be separate transport authorities.
Amendment No. 541 deals with the same state of affairs at national level, and focuses on the need for close working with the Secretary of State for Transport and consistency with what the Secretary of State for Education and Skills says on the matter.

Phil Hope: I agree that a joined-up approach to school travel is essential. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that the matter is clearly covered in the draft guidance to local authorities on school travel, which we have made available to the Committee. The guidance states that local authorities must adopt a strategic approach when they are planning school travel, as well as ensuring thorough integration with the local travel plan. The specific wording in the draft that has been made available to the Committee is:
“The strategy should be a statement of the authority’s overall vision...and should build on, and be developed in the context of the authority’s community strategies, and local transport plan...including its accessibility plan and bus strategy.”
I welcome suggestions that she might make for changes to the draft guidance, but because the guidance has been prepared, and we can ensure that it goes out to all local authorities, it is unnecessary to deal with the matter in the Bill. We have taken on board her specific concern.
The proposed subsection (7B) in amendmentNo. 541 is intended to ensure that the Bill would place no further burden on local authorities, duplicating duties under the Transport Act 2000. I acknowledge that additional duties should be kept to a minimum, but I want it to be noted that the school travel strategy and the information to be made available to parents are not requirements under either the local transport plan or the Transport Act 2000, which is why we need to include them in the guidance. The information will of course be of use to parents when they decide what schools they want to express a preference for.
I hope that the hon. Lady will understand why the additional duties are in the Bill. The Department is providing an additional £4 million a year to local authorities to build the capacity to carry out the additional duties on information for parents. Both the need to include the matter in the guidance and the resources for local authorities have been covered, so I hope that she will not press the amendments.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his reply. I do indeed have the local transport plans marked up in my guidance, but they rather strengthened my resolve to table the amendment. At this time of night, however, I hear what he says and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

LEAs in England: provision of travel arrangements etc for children

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 260, in clause 64, page 49, line 26, at end insert
‘and
(c) travel between—
(i) schools at which they receive education or training, or
(ii) institutions within the further education sector at which they receive education and training,
where the schools are making collaboration arrangements under section 88(4) of EA 2002.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 261, in schedule 8, page 187, line 38, at end insert—
‘(7) All children or persons of sixth form age are eligible for the purposes of subsection (4)(c) of section 508B of EA 1996.'.

John Hayes: Robert Louis Stevenson, whom we have not heard mentioned thus far in our considerations, said:
“For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel’s sake. The great affair is to move.”
That cannot be said of school children, who travel for a particular purpose. Francis Bacon said:
“Travel, in the younger sort, is a part of education”.
At an altogether more mundane level, paragraph 15 on page 182 of the regulatory impact assessment states that school transport arrangements are intended to
“extend the role of local authorities in supporting access to schools through improved travel and transport arrangements, particularly for children from the most disadvantaged families.”
It also suggests that the Bill will
“encourage local authorities to adopt a more strategic approach to travel and transport arrangements on the journey to school”.
Yet in defining travel arrangements, the Bill makes no mention of travelling to workplace learning or to any other learning provider such as further education colleges. We know from what the Government have said—it is an ambition that the Opposition share—that that is very much part of what they hope to achieve through greater collaboration, particularly to deliver the diplomas that we have just debated at some length.
The reason for the amendments is clear. It is absolutely certain that children increasingly need to travel to places other than school to achieve what we all hope that they might in their education.
The Government’s record on school transport is patchy. From 1996 to 1998, 36 per cent. of primary school children and 21 per cent. of secondary school children were driven to school. By 2004, the figures were 41 per cent. and 22 per cent. respectively. I call the record patchy because I make the assumption that we are all keen for children to be able to get to school without being driven there. We want children to walk to school or use buses where appropriate, because we know the environmental impact of the school run. I do not entirely blame the Government for the trend; in my own village I see people who live within a stone’s throw of a school driving their children to it.
There has been a cultural shift in assumptions about the drive to school. Having said that, I should say also that parents cite safety as a key consideration; children are allowed to walk or cycle to school only if their parents are convinced that it is safe for them to do so. Some of those concerns may be unrealistic, but some are rooted in real fears and we should not be too quick to dismiss them.
In 2005, 15 per cent. of people said that they did not feel safe walking in their local streets, and 33 per cent. said that they were fairly or very concerned about crime on public transport. Arrangements for school transport are confused and often difficult to understand. In substantial measure, the Bill puts in place proposals that were in the Bill whose progress was interrupted by the general election.
When it looked into these matters for its 2004 report on school transport, the Transport Committee was not entirely happy with the Government’s thinking. For example, it stated:
“Any new system should ensure that expenditure savings on school transport can be taken into account when investment decisions on infrastructure measures, such as providing safe footpaths or cycle routes, are made...If people’s habits are going to be changed, there must be clear limits to walking distance based on age combined with a legal definition of a safe route which is sufficiently flexible to reflect the range of different conditions that children face on their journey to school.”
More disturbingly, it said that
“The current system produces some school buses which are demonstrably dangerous. This should not be allowed...It is unacceptable for school children to be forced to use the oldest buses on the road...the Department for Transport should, as a matter of urgency, establish a working group to consider how services could be integrated”.
In a bigger section, it complained about the lack of integration. It was also disappointed that the Government were not allowing more
“freedom to experiment with new ways of specifying and providing school transport as part of a wider transport system.”
It supported the principle of pilot schemes, but felt that
“the Government’s leisurely approach is an indulgence.”
I suspect that it would take a similar view now, given that much of this Bill reflects those original proposals. 
The Transport Committee claimed that
“school transport is in crisis now and the effects of this crisis are felt by everyone who needs to travel at peak hours.”
It was
“disappointed that the Government has not provided for the pilot schemes to be far more radical.”

Mary Creagh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the survey published last week by Cycling England? It says that parents of 11 to 18-year-olds could collectively save £500 million a year if their children cycled to school. Less than 2 per cent. of young people of between 11 and 18 cycle to school. The charity says that young people could save 40 minutes a day and £4 each by cycling to school each day.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any campaign to get children on their bikes must ensure that adequate panniers are provided so that they can carry their shoes and school books on their bikes, and not have their mothers coming behind them in their Lexuses carrying them?

John Hayes: We do not have a Lexus, and my son walks to and from school. I agree that it is very important that we encourage more children to cycle or walk to school. The many who cannot, for all kinds of reasons, should be encouraged to use school transport. To do that, we have to face the fact that the delivery on school transport—I do not entirely blame the Government, as the problem goes back a long time—is patchy. I concur with the Transport Committee: we need to be more radical in our reappraisal of school transport.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is indeed speaking to amendments Nos. 260 and 261? It is just that I seem to be losing the plot.

John Hayes: If I were more cruel than I am, I would say two things, and I shall rehearse them with the Committee to decide whether they are too cruel for me to repeat. The first is that my observation of the hon. Lady’s contributions over several days suggests that she lost the plot long ago. The second is that when I last looked, you were in the Chair, Mr. Cook, and she was not. However, those comments would perhaps be ungracious, so I shall not repeat them.

Frank Cook: Order. Amendment No. 260 please. Concentrate.

John Hayes: The amendments would broaden the scope of the Bill for the reasons that I gave at the outset. As I said, we must appreciate the fact that many children who need to access learning will not do so at school. In discussing the amendments in a slightly broader way than they might have demanded, I hope that I have highlighted our profound concerns about school transport and our desire that the Government seek radical solutions to deal with what their Select Committee—or, at least, a Select Committee dominated by Labour Members—regarded as a crisis.

Annette Brooke: I support the amendments. They suggest an excellent way of promoting collaboration, although they do not seem to have much to do with the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response, and it is difficult to know whether to vote for the amendments, because we cannot quite see how they match up with the speech we have just heard, but in principle we believe that they are sound.

Phil Hope: I cannot remember who said that it was better to travel than to arrive, but that is true neither of children at school, nor of this Committee—if it were, we would never get to bed tonight.
The amendments raise drafting questions, and I am not absolutely certain that they are as accurate as we would need them to be. Rather than going into details about the appropriateness of the drafting, however, let me make it clear that the Education Act 1996 requires that education during school hours—this is the point about which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) was concerned—must be provided free. That includes materials and equipment, as well as transport provided by the local authority or the school to carry pupils between the school and an activity. Therefore, if children and pupils of sixth form age are registered at schools, any transport between institutions during the school day must already be provided free of charge.
I shall try to narrow my remarks down now because of the lateness of the hour. Under current arrangements, responsibility for home-to-school transport and for transport arrangements between institutions or other places where education and training are provided falls to different bodies. Local authorities have responsibility to provide home-to-school transport for children of compulsory school age and transport policy statements for pupils over the age of 16. Responsibility for the transport arrangements involved in education or training received away from a school lies with the school itself, rather than the local authority. In most areas, the various arrangements will continue, with local authorities retaining responsibility for getting the kids to school—that is the shorthand—while the schools at which children are registered retain responsibility for ensuring that any transport needs during the school day are catered for.
On FE, the 2002 Act places a duty on local authorities to plan and publish annual transport policy statements for young people of sixth form age who are attending an FE institution. They are required to follow clear criteria about the transport support that they offer FE students aged 16 to 19 to ensure that no student is prevented from accessing or participating in further education because of the lack of transport services or support. Where student support is assessed as necessary to enable them to access or complete their courses, it could be made available by way of discounts, subsidies, travelcards, bus passes, or indeed cash.
A point was raised about young people out at work who embark on entry to employment funded by learning and skills councils, or on programme-led pathways in work-based learning, and who do not pursue their course at a school or further education institution. When necessary, support for their travel costs can be provided by the training provider, the learning and skills council providing funds for that training provider to cover the transport costs. We also have education maintenance allowances to help with day-to-day costs when young people stay on at school.

John Hayes: I want to be clear. Is the Minister saying that the money is ring-fenced, that the learning and skills council would allocate money based on real demand, and that the money would go straight to the students? How would it work in practice?

Phil Hope: The nature of those relationships and funding arrangements are a matter for the contract between the learning and skills council and the training provider. There is a negotiation to determine whether funds are required, depending on where the student lives and so on. The situation varies between students and providers, but the LSC provides such funds to training providers to enable access.
Given the local authorities’ duties relating to home-to-school transport, it has been suggested that the local authority might be best placed to organise the necessary travel between education institutions during the school day, but that does not follow logically, because the local authority’s role could be small or large, depending on the nature of the service required. Travel between institutions might be by minibus from one school to the next, or to an FE institution—that is best organised by the institutions themselves. It is not a good idea to place a duty on local authorities to make arrangements when they are not in the best position to do so.
I am conscious of the hour. I said that there are lots of different examples of different relationships that are being piloted to enable travel between institutions, such as in the travel pathfinders that we established, as well as in respect of the 14-to-19 pathfinders—the collaborations that we discussed earlier. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that it could be beneficial for local authorities to have a role in providing innovative solutions to travel needs, so we have included transport arrangements that support pupils receiving education at more than one institution as part of our delivery of the 14-to-19 strategy. That is going on as we speak, and we shall pilot innovative options and approaches, monitor progress, and learn the lessons. Some of the school travel pathfinders starting in September 2009 will be evaluated before 2012, so that we can learn all the lessons.
I believe that I have explained our approach. Much more will come from the learning that derives from developing local collaborations and partnerships. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary has answered some of the points that I raised and that were amplified by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, but I remain concerned about the capacity to provide transport for children engaged in all types of learning, because I suspect that over time and through collaboration, as the hon. Lady mentioned, learning will increasingly take place in different locations. The Under-Secretary will know that one of the principal parental concerns about school travel is safety. Given that many 14 and 15-year-olds will be travelling to different locations, such as workplace learning locations, external learning providers and FE colleges, I am worried that we have not yet got this right. I should like to see it covered by the Bill, if for no other reason than to highlight the significance and importance of transport as a potential disincentive to the success of collaboration.
I represent a rural constituency, so I am well aware that some 14 or 15-year-olds will travel 10, 15 or even 20 miles to get to the best possible source of learning. I know that many parents and students identify transport issues as one of the principal barriers—

It being five minutes to Ten o'clock,The Chairmanproceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [28 March], as amended [this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairmanthen proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clauses 66 to 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Ten o'clock till Wednesday 10 May at Four o'clock.